Skip to main content

Ground of Divorce under Hindu Marriage Act

 Divorce under Hindu marriage Act

Section 13 of Hindu marriage act speaks about the grounds of divorce viz. on particular basis married people can file divorce on only limited grounds as mentioned in Hindu marriage act.

Section 13(1) speaks about grounds for either party which means grounds that can be put forward as the reason for filing a divorce by both husband and wife.

Previously adultery was considered as the grounds of divorce which means a husband or wife could give the reason of adultery to get divorce but now it has been removed by Supreme Court. Adultery was basically having voluntary sexual intercourse with person other than his or her spouse.

Section 13(1)(ia) Speaks about one of the grounds for divorce viz cruelty .There can be a cruelty from husband’s as well as wife’s side.

Case law -

In the case of ,Russell v. Russell

Cruelty was defined as the danger to life or limb or health or danger to mental health or there can be reasonable apprehension to such danger.

In the case of Shobha rani v. Madhukar Reddy

Husband’s parents demanded for dowry and it was held that this is considered to be cruelty by husband as the wife is facing cruelty mentally and section 498-A of IPC was also read in this case.

In the case of Dastane v. Dastane 

Wife was threatening husband and his parents by continuously saying that she will put an end to our own life or set fire to the house and it was considered as cruelty as there was reasonable apprehension.

In the case of Satya v. Sai ram - husband and husband’s side of the family what desperately waiting for A new born child but wife repeatedly terminated her pregnancy which amounted to mental cruelty suffered by husband and husband side of the family.


Section- 13(1)(ib) speaks about desertion

If either of the spouse desserts their partner for not less than two years would amount to desertion. 

There are four essentials that should satisfy the grounds of desertion-

-Intention to live separately should exist

-Intention to bring cohabitation to end permanently

-Caused desertion without a reasonable cause

-Deserted their spouse without the consent or wish of the deserted spouse

Only when all these above essentials are available a party can file a divorce on the grounds of desertion.
In the case of Bipan Chandra v.  Prabhavati 

Couples Had a kid and after few years of marriage husband went to England. During his absence wife had an illicit relationship with another man and later when husband returned from England and questioned about the same, wife got scared and left husband’s home . Husband send her wife a notice not to come back. After four years he applied for divorce saying that there was desertion from wife’s side./

Whenever the same got declined as The husband himself sent her a notice not to come back and didn’t even try to reach out his wife . So, here desertion cannot be one of the grounds of divorce.

Section 13(1)(ii) speaks about conversion 

Conversion here means changing the current religion to another.

Section 13(1)(iii) about  insanity or unsoundness of mind Divorce under Hindu marriage act.
Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Section 58B of The Advocates Act - Special provision relating to certain disciplinary proceedings

 Section 58B The Advocates Act Description (1) As from the 1st day of September, 1963, every proceeding in respect of any disciplinary matter in relation to an existing advocate of a High Court shall, save as provided in the first proviso to sub-section (2), be disposed of by the State Bar Council in relation to that High Court, as if the existing advocate had been enrolled as an advocate on its roll. (2) If immediately before the said date, there is any proceeding in respect of any disciplinary matter in relation to an existing advocate pending before any High Court under the Indian Bar Councils Act, 1926 (38 of 1926), such proceeding shall stand transferred to the State Bar Council in relation to that High Court, as if it were a proceeding pending before the corresponding Bar Council under clause (c) of sub-section (1) of section 56: Provided that where in respect of any such proceeding the High Court has received the finding of a Tribunal constituted under section 11 of the Indian B
Post a Comment
Read more

Case Laws related to Defamation in favour of ClaimantCase Laws related to Defamation in favour of Claimant. TOLLEY Vs, J.S FRY & SONS LTD – (1931) Facts The defendants were owners of chocolate manufacturing company. They advertised their products with a caricature of the claimant, who was a prominent amateur golfer, showing him with the defendants’ chocolate in his pocket while playing golf. The advertisement compared the excellence of the chocolate to the excellence of the claimant’s drive. The claimant did not consent to or knew about the advertisement. Issue The claimant alleged that the advertisement suggested that he agreed to his portrait being used for commercial purposes and for financial gain. He further claimed that the use of his image made him look like someone who prostituted his reputation for advertising purposes and was thus unworthy of his status. At trial, several golfers gave evidence to the effect that if an amateur sold himself for advertisement, he no longer maintained his amateur status and might be asked to resign from his respective club. Furthermore, there was evidence that the possible adverse effects of the caricature on the claimant’s reputation were brought to the defendants’ attention. The trial judge found that the caricature could have a defamatory meaning. The jury then found in favor of the claimant. Held The House of Lords held that in the circumstances of this case – as explained by the facts – the caricature was capable of constituting defamation. In other words, the publication could have the meaning alleged by the claimant. The Lords also ordered a new trial limited to the assessment of damages. NEWSTEAD V LANDON EXPRESS NEWSPAPER LTD, (1939) Facts: A newspaper published a defamatory article about Harold Newstead. However, another person with this name brought an action in libel. He claimed that the article had been misunderstood as leading to him. The defendant newspaper recognised that they published the article. Also, they denied that they had the intention of being defamatory of him. Consequently, the claimant argued that the newspaper was under a duty. The duty was to give a clear and complete description of the correct person. Moreover, the claimant argued that the defendants were in breach of the duty. Issues: The issue in Newstead v London Express Newspaper, was if the reasonable persons would have understood the words complained of to refer to the plaintiff. Held: The Court of Appeal stated that in accordance with the current law on libel, liability for libel does not depend on the intention of the defamer; but on the fact of the defamation. Accordingly, a reasonable man, in this case a newspaper publisher, must be aware of the possibility of individuals with the same name and must assume that the words published will be read by a reasonable man with reasonable care.

  Case Laws related to Defamation in favour of Claimant.  TOLLEY  Vs,  J.S FRY & SONS LTD – (1931) Facts The defendants were owners of chocolate manufacturing company. They advertised their products with a caricature of the claimant, who was a prominent amateur golfer, showing him with the defendants’ chocolate in his pocket while playing golf. The advertisement compared the excellence of the chocolate to the excellence of the claimant’s drive. The claimant did not consent to or knew about the advertisement.   Issue The claimant alleged that the advertisement suggested that he agreed to his portrait being used for commercial purposes and for financial gain. He further claimed that the use of his image made him look like someone who prostituted his reputation for advertising purposes and was thus unworthy of his status. At trial, several golfers gave evidence to the effect that if an amateur sold himself for advertisement, he no longer maintained his amateur status and might be aske
1 comment
Read more

Rules as to delivery of goods

                             Rules as to delivery of goods Section 2(2) of Sale of Goods Act defines ‘delivery’ as a ‘voluntary transfer of possession from one person to another.’ Thus, if the transfer of goods is not voluntary and is taken by theft, by fraud, or by force, then there is no ‘delivery. Moreover, the ‘delivery’ should have the effect of putting the goods in possession of the buyer. The essence of the delivery is a voluntary transfer of possession of goods from one person to another. There is no delivery of goods where they are obtained at pistol point or theft. 1. Mode of Delivery: According to Section 33, delivery of goods sold may be made by doing anything which the parties agree shall be treated as delivery or which has the effect of putting the goods in the possession of the buyer or of any person authorized to hold them on his behalf. Delivery of goods may be actual, symbolic or constructive. 2. Expenses of Delivery: According to Section 36(5), unless otherwise agree
Post a Comment
Read more